• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Tribunal orders QMUL to release anonymised PACE data 16 Aug 2016

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
But I'd like to look big picture, if there weren't White et. al. there would be someone Mr(s). Dark :D to do the dirty work for insurance industry. So as much as I'd like to see them punished from the harms they did, it doesn't change status quo and they system behind it. So this will happen again and again. Only at the times some who serve the system will get punished (to please public).

.

I disagree with this assessment. I think it would change the status quo if the guilty ones would be made to pay for their crimes. It would serve as a warning to other potential psych/criminals who might consider crimes against a group of vulnerable very sick patients. Their cash reward might not be enough in light of potential public humiliation and the end of their career.
 

Seven7

Seven
Messages
3,444
Location
USA
Here is my thing, this plp are smart, they had demonstrated being organized with their timing with the articles they put out. As soon as something negative comes out, they react organized and on point. Too many times the same reaction to be coincidence.

So this looks very dumb, so my conclusion is, they are making time.

The question we should ask is why are they making time?!!!!!!!
 
Messages
20
Location
Northern Europe
8< snip 8< by FoH 8< snip 8<
woman from Bristol (whose name escapes me at the moment). Her claim was that she had been accused of child abuse by some patients on online -- a nasty accusation to be sure, but given the situation, hardly a surprising one. I remember at the time thinking that if she truly believed she was really helping her patients, she should grow a thicker skin. To ask nothing of why the hell does she care what a group of patients who clearly are not "mentally well" think about her anyway?:rolleyes:
You would be surprised how sensitive many psychiatrists are of their self (at least those I have met). And the harsh comments they drop about their patients metal status and belittle their thoughts.

My experience is they can't take constructive critique of their actions or most of the time lack of action. I have seen psychiatrists get angry, throw books and papers, more than once bursting out of room mids appointment etc. while I sit in my chair and talk in calm manner to them. But maybe its me who is mentally damaged beyond hope :whistle:. I even have some of them on the tape I secretly carried with :p.

But that doesn't mean shit as it's all opinions. And at least here I have to die to hands of doctor or be permanently disabled by doctors actions to get justice. Thou I don't know how I get it if I'm dead. And the "justice" is fine and temporal limits to practice medicine.

Personally if my goal is to listen someone and try to help, I don't care if someone accuses me from misconduct up to genocide. It doesn't threaten me if someone ask me tough questions of my actions etc. As that person and her/his thoughts has no judgmental power over me.

But many psychiatrist don't have therapy background and they are too attached to their self (some call it inner child). Its like having Ph.D. in football (soccer to you Yanks), you may know the game well but you can't play it.
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
5xio1KV4_normal.jpg
davidtuller (@davidtuller1)
2016-08-18, 8:50 AM
.@QMUL .@WesselyS LIBERATE THE REAL PACE TRIAL DATA--NOW!! "RECOVERY"? TOTAL GARBAGE, NONSENSE, AND FAUX RESULTS! informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decisi…@


The tone is changing :rolleyes:
 

Snowdrop

Rebel without a biscuit
Messages
2,933
To stop this and make impact there need to be change to system, science publications, funding from special interests parties etc. This is what hurts those who we don't even know! And makes society just.

It seems there is no escape from living in a time when the system needs fixing/changing in some way. The best we can hope for is that we don't run afoul of the system. The things you mentioned are difficult to achieve but it's what we expect a system of democratic values to strive for --otherwise we're left with acknowledging we are no more than totalitarian, tribal, or some other lesser state and shouldn't put on airs to the contrary.

Unfortunately, getting sick with this illness has caused us to loose in system lottery.

I do wonder if those who hold so much power and have won the lottery of being lucky enough to be well and in a position to pursue big dreams can fathom the true extent of the harm they create by treating other human beings with such contempt and disdain when what is needed is compassion and attending to what is being said (without distortion) and then offering appropriate help (which they cannot do as psychiatrists).

Psychiatry is in need of a big paradigm shift in how it conceives of the workings of the human mind--and the extent to what it can/does know (probably even more). Breakthroughs in other fields will be needed for that.

There is a very big disconnect between the prestige and honour that goes with being a psychiatrist and the reality of the efficacy of the job in many situations --there are very real exceptions though too. I expect the difference in those that find a way to be effective is one of personal reasons for becoming a psych.

I would be very glad to see QMUL capitulate on this at this point.
And I do wonder --does anyone have an opinion or insight into how the decision might affect future trials?
There is the SMILE trial but also a trial I believe in Australia (Lloyd) and one I think in Sweden? (where it's my opinion the UK BPS crowd has tried to raise a following that will take up the flag so to speak and carry on with 'proof'')

I do understand that the researchers are in a very hard place at the moment. They must be very uncomfortable. Science research sometimes doesn't produce the expected results and that can be embarrassing for a time.
But this is all on them. This is way beyond just not getting the results that you had hoped for. This whole scenario of our complaints is justified even as we've been maligned.

And I want to see the newspaper article on that subject. . .

Whoa, sorry got that off my chest.
 
Messages
1,446
.
@Snowdrop ..... Regarding GET or CBT studies in the pipeline. The SMILE Trial is long finished - that was Esther Crawley's Lightning Process study on youngsters.
.
Its Esther Crawley's MAGENTA Trial (Pace for kids) that involves GET.
MAGENTA compares Graded Exercise with Graded Activity.



BMJ Open 4th July 2016

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/7/e011255

Managed Activity Graded Exercise iN Teenagers and pre-Adolescents (MAGENTA) feasibility randomised controlled trial: study protocol



Abstract

Introduction Paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a relatively common and disabling condition, yet there is a limited evidence base for treatment. There is good evidence that graded exercise therapy is moderately effective in adults with CFS/ME, but there is little evidence for the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability or best method of delivery for paediatric CFS/ME. This study aims to investigate the acceptability and feasibility of carrying out a multicentre randomised controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of graded exercise therapy compared with activity management for children/teenagers who are mildly or moderately affected with CFS/ME.

Methods and analysis 100 paediatric patients (8–17 years) with CFS/ME will be recruited from 3 specialist UK National Health Service (NHS) CFS/ME services (Bath, Cambridge and Newcastle). Patients will be randomised (1:1) to receive either graded exercise therapy or activity management. Feasibility analysis will include the number of young people eligible, approached and consented to the trial; attrition rate and treatment adherence; questionnaire and accelerometer completion rates. Integrated qualitative methods will ascertain perceptions of feasibility and acceptability of recruitment, randomisation and the interventions. All adverse events will be monitored to assess the safety of the trial.

Ethics and dissemination The trial has received ethical approval from the National Research Ethics Service (South West—Frenchay 15/SW/0124).

Trial registration number ISRCTN23962803; Pre-results.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




The UK ME Children's charity the Tymes Trust wrote to QMUL in February with patient harm concerns about the MAGENTA Trial, and concerns that the Magenta Trial could take place before Independent scientists have had chance to analyse the PACE Trial data.



The Tymes Trust:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1711199185831883&id=1482582732026864

Below is the text of a letter we have sent to QMUL which was of course set out on our headed paper.

LETTER TO QMUL

Records and Information Compliance Manager, QMUL
Copy to: Professor Simon Gaskell, Principal, QMUL

RELEASE OF PACE TRIAL DATA


Dear Sir

We understand from your December 2015 statement that you wish to receive patients' views on the release of the PACE trial data.

Tymes Trust is the longest established UK service for children with ME and their families. We are frequently contacted by parents whose children's condition has deteriorated after various regimes of graded exercise, graded activity, and graded school attendance, with its demands upon both body and brain. Therefore we are extremely concerned that, before any fresh analysis of the PACE trial data by independent scientists has taken place, a PACE trial for children (under the appellation MAGENTA) is being set up. This will subject children to graded exercise therapy.

Given the many concerns about the methodology used in the PACE trial, and given the fact that its conclusions are starkly at odds with the findings of patient organisation surveys into graded exercise therapy, which consistently show three quarters of patients reporting deterioration as a result, you must surely agree that parents are entitled to have access to the results of an independent analysis of the PACE trial data before agreeing to subject their children to this therapy.

You may be aware that the published information about the MAGENTA trial confidently states: “There are no risks of participating in the study.” Contrast this with one of the latest patient messages we have received: “Save our children from GET. I know what I am talking about, from an ex triathlete who went from mild to severe ME because of GET.”

We are well aware of the controversy surrounding the release of the PACE trial data, and are amazed that you appear so reluctant to put a speedy end to this potentially damaging and unseemly stand-off between yourselves and a world renowned group of scientists who are only the latest among many to request the release of this data. We hope you will reconsider, rather than fighting the Information Commissioner's order to release the data. It is surely the responsible thing to do.

Yours sincerely

Jane Colby
Executive Director
The Young ME Sufferers Trust

.
 
Last edited:

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
James Coyne:
My latest blog post presents the letter I sent to the Tribunal. I note that the Tribunal which upheld the release of the PACE data was a lower Tribunal and an appeal to an upper tribunal is possible. I also mention Trudie Chalder citing in her testimony my social media activity as evidence of the reputational dmage the PACE investigators would risk if the investigators released the data. The Informational Commissioner turned her testimony on her by stated I represented the quality of academics still interested in what should be considered old data. He said it should therefore be released to settle the controversy. The Tribunal accepted this argument. I am flattered, but consider this undue credit. When I am permitted, I will provide the testimony.

Please distribute widely and encourage comment.


https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/20...-the-uk-tribunal/comment-page-1/#comment-2393
 
Last edited:
Messages
20
Location
Northern Europe
I disagree with this assessment. I think it would change the status quo if the guilty ones would be made to pay for their crimes. It would serve as a warning to other potential psych/criminals who might consider crimes against a group of vulnerable very sick patients. Their cash reward might not be enough in light of potential public humiliation and the end of their career.

In current system "payment for the crimes" would be quite arbitrary as there is high chance (like >95%) you get away with it. The time it takes to investigate and prosecute the case in several layers in legal system would make payment long overdue. And the is no guarantees of verdict.

If big if punishment could be swift and just, then this would deter people. But as there is 10-100's billions in insurance, pension and welfare benefits at stake I recognize it as a force that bends our justice system and society at large.

Please look how similar forces has shaped EU commission policy of car emissions. We had strict policy of 80mg/km NOx emissions but then it was watered down by auto industry introducing "conformity factor" of 2.1 until +2021. Now we have several cities in Europe which are introducing traffic fees and band for diesel cars to city centers as they can't keep air clean enough. In the contrast large trucks have lesser NOx emissions than cars. Cars could be maid cleaner but auto industry protest this. In background there is human lifes and health at stack as these emissions aren't healthy.

My point is, it doesn't help much to throw peasants (like PACE authors) under the wagon. They have enough money to pay new peasants bit more to do their dirty work even if we could make it bit riskier. In imaginary system where 90% of the "peasants" were imprisoned for 2 years they would still do it, as insurance industry would give them lucrative pensions afterwards.

So yes PACE authors are *holes and their actions have substantially contributed to my poor health over 15 years, wrong psychiatric diagnoses F48.0, F45.3x, F32.x, F33.x, F61.0, lack of proper diagnosis and treatment of my real problems (F84.5, F90.0, G93.3,...), lack of recognition of G93.3 ME/CFS in our pensions and welfare system + much more (likely dead people). So in my angry mind I would like to see them ... (better I don't write it here). But in big picture it hardly changes anything no matter what happened to PACE authors.

So best thing I can think of is that PACE authors turned to whistle blowers and exposed UK DWP and insurance industry. I really would like to see transcripts from those smoke filled cabinets etc. But I don't think this will happen as legal case against them is really difficult (IANAL) and otherwise I don't see enough pressure.

In final note I'm ready to pledge 200€/$/£ to support legal action against PACE authors to make that pressure happen.
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
Its Esther Crawley's MAGENTA Trial (Pace for kids) that is planned, but has not started yet.

I think Magenta is well underway.

From the protocol http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN2396280...36&page=1&pageSize=10&searchType=basic-search

Overall trial start date
01/09/2015

Overall trial end date
31/08/2016
Recruitment start date
01/09/2015

Recruitment end date
31/08/2016

I think Crawley is demonstrating an inability to fill out a form because the trial finished on the last day of recruitment so I suspect that they are recruiting up to the end of this month and continuing to CBT and follow up so I think the end time should be 2017 given they have a 12 month follow up.

Of course they only published the protocol in the middle of the trial. They showed how well they are using the protocol by changing it in response to reviewers comments all after the start of the trial.
 

Snowdrop

Rebel without a biscuit
Messages
2,933
Thanks for that clarification @Wildcat

I had remembered it the other way round with regard to MAGENTA (such pretty, happy names you'd be forgiven for thinking the whole trial was about a trip to the circus to watch unicorns fart rainbows and stars out their butt)

And kudos to JC for the letter. I hope it gets a considered response. If not we will continue our vigilance.
 

halcyon

Senior Member
Messages
2,482
More twitter goodies:

HQpB4ciB_normal.jpg
Trevor Butterworth (@Butterworthy)
2016-08-17, 6:49 AM
Cochrane Review allowed #PACE researchers to review their own (flawed) work. Surely independent statistical review must be the new norm?

5xio1KV4_normal.jpg
davidtuller (@davidtuller1)
2016-08-18, 12:46 PM
They have a history of peer-reviewing themselves and their colleagues' work. twitter.com/Butterworthy/s…


:cool::thumbsup::rolleyes:
So Cochrane has specific rules surrounding this. Cochrane review authors aren't allowed to extract data for the review from their own papers:

2.2.4. Cochrane Review author also an author on a study listed in the review
Cochrane authors who include primary studies (which they had conducted) in their Cochrane Review should declare this in the review in the ‘Declarations of interest’ section. Authors of primary studies should not extract data from their own study or studies. Instead, another author(s) or an editor(s) should extract these data, and check the interpretation against the study report and any available study registration details or protocol.

Also, the relevant authorship of the primary studies should be disclosed in Cochrane's disclosure of potential conflicts of interest form and therefore the Cochrane Review.

So I take this to mean that the PACE PIs would have had to give data over to the other review authors, which kind of doesn't fit with what Chalder was saying.
 

Kyla

ᴀɴɴɪᴇ ɢꜱᴀᴍᴩᴇʟ
Messages
721
Location
Canada

mango

Senior Member
Messages
905
A Swedish newsmagazine on health has a short brief on this on its front page now.

I'd say this is a really big deal! :) DagensMedicin is a website only for health professionals, only publishing stuff from the professionals' perspective (never the patients' perspective). Patients aren't even allowed to leave comments, they get deleted quite quickly regardless of content :(

DagensMedicin has published some really ugly and untrue stuff in articles about ME/CFS and pwme over the years, with a very obvious BPS bias, and they have very often allowed many long horrendous and abusive discussions between "professionals" in the comments sections etc...

This article isn't bad, though! (Could have been much better, too.) What a pleasant surprise! :)
 

Art Vandelay

Senior Member
Messages
470
Location
Australia
I too am surprised at just how weak their evidence was on this stuff.

When the time came for these arse clowns to put up or shut up, to lay their years of damning evidence on the table before a proper formal high-level legal hearing, and prove for once and for all what a bunch of deluded dangerous ingrates we patients are,... what did we get?

One person felt a bit heckled once, for a few moments, at a public conference. Or something.

o_O

Is this the tragedy or farce phase of the historical cycle? Just for the record. :meh:

So basically their evidence (and, indeed their whole case) was about as shoddy and as exaggerated as their research. I'm not terribly surprised!
 
Last edited: